There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
(10-07-2022, 07:03 PM)Pckts Wrote: Here is a comparable male in all departments
*This image is copyright of its original author
213cm in HBL but taken over curves so around 208cm in a straight line.
His chest girth is 140cm *4 cm* larger than Wagdoh
Shoulder height unknown but it’s safe to say it’s going to be at least as tall as Wagdoh since he wasn’t a very tall Tiger.
This males weight was 546lbs or 247 kgs.
213cm over the curves would mean 200-203 cm in straight which totally adds up with the weight of 247kg.
And like I have already stated, chest girth does not correlate with weight as much as bodylength does and also the fact that Wagdoh was so old his chest girth would have shrunk due to old age.
No it wouldn’t, generally you’ll see anywhere from 2-4” difference between the two. So assuming they both are fairly close in length, Wagdoh is outsized in chest and most likely shoulder. And Branders 600lb Tiger significantly outsized him in every department
*This image is copyright of its original author
Completely wrong. The straight bodylength is about 0.94-0.955 times the curved bodylength. Your method of ‘subtracting’ 2-4 inches is invalid because the bigger the Tiger, the more you’ll have to subtract and the smaller the Tiger, the less.
Maźak even suggests subtracting 20cm (8 inches) for the largest Tigers so your method of subtracting 2-4 inches is completely wrong.
And even if you subtract 4 inches since this was a large Tiger, it would still mean 203cm in straight line so where did you pull out 208cm from??
And I am saying this the 17th time, chest girth does not have a good enough correlation between with weight and neither does height and Wagdoh was so old his chest would have shrunk anyway.
And the Brander example is invalid since that Tiger was never weighed on a scale.
First off, no two people measure the same which is why you can have different results from the same Tiger depending on who took them. So it doesn’t matter how long or short a Tiger is if the protocol of between the pegs or over the curves is different.
Next is that generally speaking the differences between the two is going to be in the range I specified. What Mazak quoted is too much unless the cat has extreme curvatures or the person taking the measurements is doing it “wrong.” Brander specifically mentions 3-5” for his cats. And this includes the tail which is 1/3 the length of the total body.
And who is saying to take off 4”, certainly not me. Like i said, generally it’s between 2-4” so they’ll be “around” the same length but that male with have a larger chest. So assuming his height is at least as tall he by all accounts will be within the same range as Wagdoh.
Chest girth is one factor, like weight, and height. All show decent correlations to total weight but none will point the whole picture.
Hence the shorter Tiger weighing more than the longer one with the same chest girth.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Lastly back to Brander, his weight estimate is far more valid than 99.9% of the people out there since he’s weighed and measured many cats who were fresh.
Wrong again and thanks for proving my point.
Brander suggests subtracting 3-5 inches. Doesn’t matter if it’s with tail or without tail because tail is ALWAYS measured in straight line even when the total length is measured over the curves because tails have no ‘curves’.
So 3-5 inches is what you have to subtract from bodylength (excluding tail) as well.
And by this, we can understand that Brander tells us to subtract 3 inches for the small males and 5 inches for the large males and this 213cm male was large so we have to subtract 5 inches which gives us 200cm length in straight line.
And a 200cm Tiger in straight line weighed 247kg which makes total sense. This example of yours once again further proves my point.